SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
jack smith
Jack Smith: Trump 'Willfully Broke the Law' and Is Seeking 'Revenge' Against Those Who Uncovered It
"President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold."
Jan 22, 2026
Former special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday defended his decision to bring criminal charges against President Donald Trump, while also expressing deep concerns about the rule of law in the US during the second Trump administration.
During testimony before the US House Judiciary Committee, Smith emphasized that he decided to prosecute Trump solely because the facts in the case showed he had committed crimes.
"President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold," said Smith. "Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned."
Smith then said that after losing the US presidential election in 2020, Trump "engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power."
The former special counsel emphasized that he stood by his decisions to bring charges against Trump because "our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity."
Smith told lawmakers on the committee that he had uncovered evidence that Trump knew his claims about the 2020 election being stolen were false, but he pushed them anyway in order to illegally remain in the White House.
"Trump was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election," said Smith. "He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him things that conflicted with him staying in power, he rejected them."
In addition to discussing his criminal cases against the president, which were dismissed without prejudice after the 2024 presidential election, Smith also delivered a warning about Trump's campaign of retribution against his enemies.
"President Trump has sought to seek revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff simply for having done these cases," he said. "Vilifying and seeking retribution against these people is wrong. Those dedicated public servants are the base of us, and it has been a privilege to serve with them."
Smith then pivoted to warning about the state of the rule of law in general during Trump's second term.
"My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted," he said. "The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what tests and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country."
Smith's testimony earned praise from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
"Special Counsel Smith, you pursued the facts," Raskin said. "You followed every applicable law... Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity Section. You acted based solely on the facts."
The Maryland Democrat said that Smith's approach to enforcing the law was in stark contrast to the approach the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken during Trump's second term.
"The opposite of Donald Trump, who now has purported to take over the Department of Justice," Raskin said. "He’s in charge of the whole thing under his unitary executive theory, and he acts openly, purely based on political vendetta and motives of personal revenge. And he doesn’t deny it."
As Smith was testifying, Trump called Smith a "deranged animal" and put direct pressure the DOJ to punish the former special counsel.
"Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "The whole thing was a Democrat SCAM — A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our Country through!"
On Tuesday, Trump filed a motion asking the US District Court of the Southern District of Florida to prohibit the DOJ from carrying out a planned future release of Smith's report on his case against Trump that involved the unlawful retention of top-secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort after he left the White House in 2021.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, linked the timing of Thursday's hearing with Smith to the potential release of his report on the classified documents case.
" Republicans are only now allowing this hearing simply because Judge Cannon’s injunction keeping the second volume of Jack Smith’s report private is about to expire," she said. "Keeping the truth locked away is an assault on the rule of law and on the transparency owed to the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Tries to Permanently Stop DOJ From Releasing Jack Smith Report on Classified Documents Case
"Does he want the Smith report to be locked up with the Epstein files?"
Jan 21, 2026
As his administration continues dragging its feet in releasing the Epstein files, President Donald Trump is pushing to keep another potentially damning set of Justice Department documents hidden from the public.
On Tuesday, Trump filed a 19-page motion requesting that the US District Court of the Southern District of Florida step in to prohibit the DOJ’s planned release of Volume II of the final report prepared by former Special Counsel Jack Smith next month. The volume relates to the president’s handling of classified documents after leaving office in 2021.
Trump was indicted by a grand jury for 37 felony counts following Smith's investigation, 31 of which involved violations of the Espionage Act, after transporting "scores of boxes" full of classified materials, including top-level military and intelligence secrets, to his home at Mar-a-Lago and showing them off to people without security clearances.
But Smith ultimately dropped the case in November 2024 after it became clear that Trump's reelection would shield him from legal liability.
It's strange for the President of the United States to be litigating in his personal capacity against the Justice Department he runs — but he's seeking an order barring "current, former and future" DOJ officials from releasing Jack Smith's second volume. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
[image or embed]
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney.bsky.social) January 20, 2026 at 6:38 PM
On January 7, 2025, just days before Trump reassumed office, the DOJ released Volume I of Smith's report, which pertained to Trump's attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election by spreading false claims of widespread voter fraud, which culminated in the attack on the US Capitol building by a mob of his supporters on January 6, 2021.
Though Trump's indictment in that case was also dropped following his reelection, the report was released under DOJ rules requiring public disclosure of all investigative reports after cases conclude.
That report described Trump as having undertaken an “unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power,” a scheme in which he knowingly spread information casting doubt on the election result even after his own staff confirmed it to be false and he acknowledged his loss in private.
Unlike the election case, the classified documents case was dismissed in July 2024 by the Trump-appointed federal judge Aileen Cannon of the same district court, who ruled that Smith's appointment as special counsel was unlawful.
Cannon also issued an injunction blocking the release of the report to Congress, but only until February 24, 2026, so as not to prejudice the legal proceedings against Trump's co-defendants, former aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago employee Carlos De Oliveira, who were accused of helping him illegally stash documents and hide them from investigators.
Citing her previous ruling, Trump is now asking Cannon to permanently block the report, claiming that, because of her ruling against Smith, "all acts undertaken" by him, including the creation and release of the report, are "void."
Not only does he seek to prohibit the "current" DOJ from releasing it, but also "former and future" DOJ officials from ever releasing it, as it would result in the "public dissemination of sensitive grand jury materials, attorney-client privileged information, and other informationderived from protected discovery materials, raising significant statutory, due process, and privacy concerns for President Trump and his former co-defendants."
Trump's request to permanently spike the report immediately drew comparisons to the Epstein files, which remain almost entirely unreleased by the DOJ nearly a month after the deadline mandated by law, which was signed by Trump himself after being passed in November.
For over a year, efforts to halt the release of Smith's report have fueled concerns of a cover-up and raised questions about whether Cannon has any authority to issue rulings at all, since the case has been dismissed.
In a piece for MS NOW (then MSNBC) last year, after the first report was released, legal analyst Glenn Kirschner warned that if the second one were buried in perpetuity, it could allow Trump to escape legal consequences after his term is up.
"If there is no disclosure of Volume II to members of Congress, what might a Trump-led DOJ do to the evidence?" he asked. "Might it be destroyed in an attempt to make sure Trump is never held to account for the classified documents crimes? Recall that the documents case was dismissed without prejudice, which means the case could theoretically be refiled once Trump leaves office."
His colleague, former US Attorney Joyce Vance, noted the peculiarity of Cannon's assertion of authority in a case that had already been dismissed.
"The strangest thing about this entire proceeding is that Judge Cannon continues to issue orders when there is no case pending in front of her," she said. "That’s not how a court’s jurisdiction is supposed to work.”
After appearing at a closed-door deposition last month as part of an inquiry launched by Republicans, Smith is scheduled to testify publicly before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday at 10 am ET.
Smith's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, told the Associated Press earlier this month that "Jack has been clear for months he is ready and willing to answer questions in a public hearing about his investigations into President Trump's alleged unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his mishandling of classified documents."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Year's Eve Dump: House Releases Video and Transcript of Jack Smith Deposition
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case," Smith told members of the House Judiciary Committee.
Dec 31, 2025
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday released both the transcript and video of former special counsel Jack Smith's December 17 testimony about his criminal cases against President Donald Trump that were shut down last year after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
The release, which occurred as millions of Americans were preparing to celebrate New Year's Eve, revealed fresh insights into Smith's investigation and prosecution of the president, who had been indicted on charges related to the unlawful retention of top-secret government documents and his bid to illegally remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
Among other things, Smith testified that he believed that Trump's false claims about fraud in the 2020 election were not protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution because they were aimed at disrupting the certification of the election results on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters violently stormed the US Capitol building and send lawmakers fleeing for their lives.
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case," Smith emphasized. "As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use... knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function."
Smith also testified that he and his team sought gag orders against Trump because the then-former president "was making statements that were endangering witnesses, intimidating witnesses, endangering members of my staff, endangering court staff."
Smith also said that he would "make no apologies" for requesting a gag order against Trump.
When asked about his decision to subpoena phone records of US senators during his investigation, Smith laid out why Trump had left him with no other option.
"I think who should be accountable for this is Donald Trump," he said. "These records are people, in the case of the senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings. He chose to do that. If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them... that lies with Donald Trump."
Commenting on the timing of the release, New York University law professor Ryan Goodman called it "an obvious attempt" by House Republicans to "bury" the information that Smith delivered during his testimony.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Suspends Prosecutors Who Accurately Described January 6 as a ‘Riot’ by a ‘Mob’
"The Trump administration is explicitly pro-January 6," wrote one critic. "You can get suspended from your job as a federal prosecutor for even acknowledging that there was a riot at the Capitol."
Oct 29, 2025
In the Trump administration's latest attempt to rewrite the history of the January 6, 2021 insurrection attempt at the US Capitol, the Department of Justice has suspended a pair of federal prosecutors who referred to the attack as a "riot" carried out by a "mob."
The Washington Post reported that assistant US attorneys Carlos Valdivia and Samuel White were told they were suspended on Wednesday, "hours" after filing a sentencing recommendation against Taylor Taranto, a Washington state man accused of participating in the attack on the Capitol in an effort to stop the certification of President Donald Trump's loss in the 2020 election.
Taranto allegedly entered the building and fought with Metro police officers as they tried to control the crowd, as well as other riot participants.
The case was not related to Taranto's actions at the Capitol in 2021—the charges against him were dropped after Trump issued blanket pardons to more than 1,500 people who took part in the riot.
Taranto was instead being sentenced for a "hoax" he perpetrated when he returned to Washington, DC two years later: He livestreamed himself making threats to several high-profile individuals, including former President Barack Obama, whose address he'd driven to after Trump had posted it to social media. He claimed—falsely, it turned out—that he'd outfitted his van with a car bomb that he planned to detonate outside the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The sentencing document recommended that Taranto serve a 27-month sentence. However, what appears to have drawn the ire of the DOJ and led to the suspension of the prosecutors is how the document referred to the events at the Capitol, which it mentioned in passing as part of the case's factual background:
On January 6, 2021, thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters attacked the U.S. Capitol while a joint session of Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. Taranto was accused of participating in the riot in Washington, DC, by entering the US Capitol Building. After the riot, Taranto returned to his home in the state of Washington, where he promoted conspiracy theories about the events of January 6, 2021.
As Politico reporter Kyle Cheney noted on social media, this description of the events of January 6 is "flatly accurate." Numerous pieces of video evidence show rioters using physical force and violence in an attempt to occupy the Capitol building.
As the New York Times described at the time, it was "perhaps the most widely documented act of political violence in history." Participants were recorded bashing through doors and windows. They were shown beating police officers with objects from flagpoles to fire extinguishers and attacking them with chemical irritants. They were also heard chanting for the execution of members of Congress and then-Vice President Mike Pence, who'd refused to take part in Trump's effort to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office released in 2023 found that the attack resulted in the injury of 174 law enforcement officers, while DOJ and Capitol administrators say it required over $3 million worth of cleanup and repairs.
According to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke to the Post on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, White and Valdivia's description of these events as a "riot" and its participants as a "mob" resulted in their near immediate punishment.
They were told they were being furloughed due to the government shutdown and would be placed on administrative leave once it ended. According to ABC News, the pair of prosecutors was also locked out of their government-issued devices.
Notably, Trump's own handpicked US Attorney, Jeanine Pirro—a former Fox News host renowned for her undying loyalty to the president—also signed off on the document. However, unlike White and Valdivia, she has not reportedly received any punishment.
The DOJ has not issued a public comment on the decision, and it remains unclear whether the suspension of White and Valdivia will affect Taranto's sentencing. But it's not the first time the DOJ, headed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has sought to punish those who prosecuted January 6 insurrectionists.
Dozens of the top prosecutors and FBI investigators who worked on cases against January 6 defendants and against Trump for inciting them have been fired.
Early in Trump's second term, the DOJ also demanded that the FBI turn over the identities of the more than 6,000 agents and other employees involved in investigating the attack. After Brian Driscoll, then the acting FBI director, attempted to resist the order, he was pushed out, and the identifying info was handed over.
Trump, meanwhile, has openly embraced the insurrectionists, describing them as "patriots," and attempted to push false theories attesting to their innocence—including that hundreds of agents placed by the "Biden FBI" started the insurrection, a claim that his own FBI director, Kash Patel, would refute.
On Wednesday, just hours before news broke of White and Valdivia's suspensions, Trump wrote on Truth Social that the "thugs" at the FBI who investigated Republican lawmakers over their roles in allegedly supporting the insurrection "should all be investigated and put in jail" and called Jack Smith, the special prosecutor who investigated the case against him for inciting the mob, "deranged" and "a criminal."
"The Trump administration is explicitly pro-January 6," wrote Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, on social media. "You can get suspended from your job as a federal prosecutor for even acknowledging that there was a riot at the Capitol."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Attacks the Right to a Lawyer
The presidential assault on the lawyers and law firms representing his litigation adversaries is an attack on the very foundation of the legal system.
Mar 12, 2025
In America’s legal system, both sides to a dispute are entitled to counsel. President Donald Trump rejects that premise because he prefers a one-sided battle that he is more likely to win.
To that end, he is using his special ability to combine vindictiveness with strategy. Wielding the power of the presidency, he is penalizing the attorneys who represent his opponents. Even more troubling, other lawyers are helping him undermine the foundation of our justice system.
Throughout his campaign, candidate Trump railed against his supposed “enemies.” In addition to prosecutors who pressed charges and judges who presided over cases against him, he promised “retribution” against private-sector lawyers who had represented his political adversaries. As president, he’s keeping that promise.
President Trump is not a lawyer, but he did swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Who will hold him to that promise?
The president’s first attack came in early February when he revoked the security clearances of Mark Zaid and Norm Eisen—outspoken Trump critics. For decades, Mr. Zaid has represented whistleblowers in Republican and Democratic administrations, including the whistleblower at the center of President Trump’s first impeachment. Mr. Eisen helped House Democrats develop the articles of impeachment. Because the president “flooded the zone” with tariffs, terminations, and tantrums, those suspensions received little news coverage.
His second blow landed on February 25, 2025, when he issued an executive order suspending the security clearances of all attorneys and employees at Covington & Burling—a premier 1,300-attorney global law firm representing former special counsel Jack Smith. During the campaign, he had threatened Smith repeatedly with deportation and worse. Smith retained Covington, which represented him pro bono before he resigned as special counsel. The firm is still his defense counsel.
The executive order prevents Smith’s attorneys from accessing important government materials and makes defending him more challenging. Perhaps more importantly, it was also a warning to other attorneys contemplating the representation of anyone the president does not like.
The third attack occurred with the executive order of March 6. He suspended the security clearances of individuals at Perkins Coie—a global law firm of more than 1,200 attorneys worldwide. Among other penalties, the president instructed the heads of all federal agencies to limit Perkins employees’ access to federal government buildings.
At their core, the executive orders are a transparent effort to intimidate other attorneys who represent the president’s adversaries. For example, his stated justifications for the Perkins suspension are nonsensical. He complains about work that two partners at the firm, Marc Elias and Michael Sussman, did on behalf of the Clinton campaign in 2016. But both lawyers left Perkins years ago. Trump’s order also criticizes the firm’s involvement in successful challenges to voter restriction laws in Republican-controlled states. And he even includes the firm’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion as a reason for its suspension.
The presidential assault on the lawyers and law firms representing his litigation adversaries is an attack on the very foundation of the legal system. The American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL)—an elite body of litigation attorneys—responded immediately to his executive orders:
Lawyers throughout the country should unite in condemning these actions in the strongest possible terms.
The White House’s retaliating against a law firm merely because it represented a client against whom the Executive Branch has a grievance, threatens the bedrock principles of our system of justice. Under those principles, everyone is entitled to legal representation. In criminal matters, that right is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
The ACTL’s statement outlined the broader consequences of the president’s assault:
Lawyers cannot be denied access to the courts nor should their advocacy be throttled merely because the government disagrees with the positions asserted or because litigants seek to enjoin Executive actions that may violate statutory and constitutional rights of a free people. When government retaliation is grounded in efforts to punish lawyers for the parties that they represent or the positions that they assert, our system of justice is undermined.
Likewise, speaking for the entire profession, the American Bar Association declared, “These government actions deny clients access to justice and betray our fundamental values.”
To become a licensed member of the bar, every attorney swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. Every attorney is bound by rules of ethical conduct requiring them to support the rule of law. Every attorney has an obligation to enhance public confidence in the legal system. Yet attorneys drafted, reviewed, and approved the executive orders that are undermining the bedrock principles of our justice system.
President Trump is not a lawyer, but he did swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Who will hold him to that promise? Asking for a friend of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ Fires Jan. 6 Prosecutors, Top FBI Agents While Threatening Larger Purge
"Trump's outrageous attack on the DOJ and FBI is a clear and present danger to public safety, and a wrecking ball swinging at the rule of law," Rep. Jamie Raskin said.
Feb 01, 2025
The Trump Department of Justice made moves on Friday to fire FBI employees and prosecutors who were involved with the government's cases against U.S. President Donald Trump and the participants in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
First, on Thursday, several senior FBI officials—stationed both at headquarters and in the field—were told to either resign or be fired. Then, at 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, dozens of DOJ prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases received an email saying they had been fired. Also on Friday, an email sent to FBI employees told them that acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, who previously represented Trump in the cases against him, had requested a list of everyone who had worked on January 6 cases "to determine whether any additional personnel actions are necessary."
"Firing the FBI agents who investigated violent attacks against police officers on January 6 would set a dangerous precedent and make all of us less safe," Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said in a statement. "This is a shameless act of political retribution that weakens federal law enforcement and the rule of law."
"This is a massacre meant to chill our efforts to fight crime without fear or favor."
The FBI higher-ups forced out included the agency's six most senior executives as well as more than 20 directors of field offices including Washington, D.C., Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Seattle, and Las Vegas. The targeted officials had been promoted by former FBI Director Christopher Wray, according to The New York Times. The Washington, D.C. field office worked extensively on Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigations into Trump's mishandling of classified documents and involvement in the January 6 insurrection, as well as the investigations of the rioters themselves, NBC News reported. One source told The Hill that agents who had worked on the cases were physically escorted out of the D.C. field office on Friday.
NBC reported that several of the senior officials had chosen to retire, even though they could have challenged their dismissals as nonpolitical appointees subject to civil service regulations.
Many of the agents received the ultimatum the same day that U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to head the FBI, Kash Patel, promised in his Senate confirmation hearing that he would not retaliate against any agents who worked on the Trump cases and was not aware of any attempts to do so.
"All FBI employees will be protected against political retribution," Patel told the Senate.
Trump, meanwhile, said on Friday that he was not aware of the firings, but added, "If they fired some people over there, that's a good thing, because they were very bad. They were very corrupt people, very corrupt, and they hurt our country very badly with the weaponization."
Another memo sent by Bove to acting FBI Director Brian J. Driscoll Jr. laid the groundwork for more firings, as Driscoll was asked to submit a list of all agents and employees "assigned at any time to investigations and/or prosecutions" related to January 6, as The New York Times reported. Field offices received a similar request from the FBI's counterterrorism division. Bove also asked for a list of agents who worked on a case against Hamas leadership, though it is not clear why.
One employee told CNN that the January 6 case was the largest case the bureau had ever worked on, observing that "everyone touched that case."
In an email to staff on Friday reported by NBC, Driscoll noted, "We understand that this request encompasses thousands of employees across the country who have supported these investigative efforts," adding, "I am one of those employees."
"This is a massacre meant to chill our efforts to fight crime without fear or favor," another anonymous agent told CNN. "Even for those not fired, it sends the message that the bureau is no longer independent."
The FBI Agents Association, which represents over 14,000 active and former agents, issued a scathing statement on Friday.
"If true, these outrageous actions by acting officials are fundamentally at odds with the law enforcement objectives outlined by President Trump and his support for FBI Agents," the association said. "Dismissing potentially hundreds of agents would severely weaken the bureau's ability to protect the country from national security and criminal threats and will ultimately risk setting up the bureau and its new leadership for failure. These actions also contradict the commitments that Attorney General-nominee Pam Bondi and Director-nominee Kash Patel made during their nomination hearings before the United States Senate."
The group added that Patel had promised association members in a meeting that "agents would be afforded appropriate process and review and not face retribution based solely on the cases to which they were assigned."
Finally on Friday, DOJ prosecutors received an email from Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, telling them they were being fired and including a memo from Bove. The fired prosecutors had been hired to work on the January 6 cases and were made permanent by the Biden administration following the November election. In his memo, Bove suggested the prosecutors had been made permanent in an inappropriate attempt to protect them from being fired.
"I will not tolerate subversive personnel actions by the previous administration at any U.S. Attorney's Office," Bove wrote, as POLITICO reported. "Too much is at stake. In light of the foregoing, the appropriate course is to terminate these employees."
One of the impacted prosecutors told POLITICO that 25 to 30 people were let go.
"This attack on the Justice Department and particularly on the FBI is the beginning of America's first true era of dictatorship."
The latest round of DOJ firings comes days after the Trump administration already fired a dozen lawyers who had helped bring Smith's two cases against Trump. They also come a week after Trump's firing of 12 inspectors general. Trump also pardoned all approximately 1,500 people involved in the January 6 insurrection on his first day in office.
News of the FBI and DOJ firings sparked ire from Democratic lawmakers.
"Trump's outrageous attack on the DOJ and FBI is a clear and present danger to public safety, and a wrecking ball swinging at the rule of law," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, in a statement. "Trump wants to send the message to the police and federal officers that the law doesn't apply to Trump and his enablers. It's also part of his campaign to replace nonpartisan career civil servants with political loyalists and incompetent sycophants. Trump's moves have already left the Justice Department and the FBI rudderless and adrift by ousting their career senior ranks. Now, these unprecedented purges of hundreds of prosecutors, staff, and experienced law enforcement agents will undermine the government's power to protect our country against national security, cyber, and criminal threats."
"The loyal friend of autocrats, kleptocrats, oligarchs, and broligarchs, Trump doesn't care about the requirements of democracy, national security, and public safety," Raskin continued. "His agenda is vengeance and retribution. If allowed to proceed, Trump's purge of our federal law enforcement workforce will expose America to authoritarianism and dictatorship."
Sen. Dick Durbin, (D-Ill.), who serves on the Judiciary Committee, called the firings "a major blow to the FBI and Justice Department's integrity and effectiveness."
"This is a brazen assault on the rule of law that also severely undermines our national security and public safety," Durbin continued. "Unelected Trump lackeys are carrying out widespread political retribution against our nation's career law enforcement officials. President Trump would rather have the FBI and DOJ full of blind admirers and loyalists than experienced law enforcement officers."
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) also decried the firings and cast doubt on the integrity of Bondi and Patel, whom Trump had tapped to lead the DOJ and FBI respectively.
"Pam Bondi and Kash Patel both committed to protecting the Department of Justice and the FBI from politics and weaponization. If these reports are true, it's clear they misled the Senate," Himes said. "As ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, I have repeatedly asked the FBI for more information about these reports and will insist on answers."
Fellow Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro wrote on social media: "Priority #1 for the Trump administration: Protect the lawless and purge those who uphold the law. The firing of FBI agents and federal prosecutors without cause is an assault on the rule of law and law enforcement. It leaves Americans vulnerable and less safe. We will push back."
As Democrats promised action, Harvey of Stand Up America also called on Republican lawmakers to respond.
"This is not about public safety—it's about revenge and control," Harvey said. "Removing experienced law enforcement professionals and replacing them with political loyalists puts all of our safety at risk. If there are any Republican senators left who care about protecting the rule of law and public safety, they should oppose this dangerous purge and reject Kash Patel's nomination as FBI Director."
Progressive political commenter Thom Hartmann urged U.S. citizens to call their representatives.
"Let's just call these mass firings at Justice and the FBI what they are. Donald Trump is a lawless man who is ripping apart the FBI to turn it into a banana republic-style group of enforcing thugs who will only do his will," Hartmann wrote on his Substack Saturday morning. "They will spare his friends and persecute his enemies. We've seen this over and over during the past century in countries all over the world; it's nothing new. It's just that we never expected to see it here in America."
"[Russian President Vladimir] Putin dreamed for most of his life of destroying America; he now has a friend who is doing it for him. This attack on the Justice Department and particularly on the FBI is the beginning of America's first true era of dictatorship. The only question now is how long and how far Democratic and Republican politicians and career government employees will tolerate this, and, when their resistance comes, whether it will be too late. The phone number for Congress is 202-224-3121."
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Are All Paying the Price for Merrick Garland’s Abject Failure
Decades from now, historians will memorialize Garland not as a dedicated public servant but as the head of the Justice Department who brought a butter knife to an existential gunfight with Trump, quickening our collective descent into neo-fascism.
Jan 22, 2025
It’s hard to say who is the worst attorney general in American history. The candidates are many and comprise a veritable rogue’s gallery of sadists, reactionaries, and incompetents. They range from A. Mitchell Palmer, mastermind of the original Red Scare that decimated the left in the wake of the First World War, to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and William Pelham Barr, who sacrificed the rule of law in service to Donald Trump.
Merrick Garland may not share the malignancies of his fellow train wrecks, but he deserves to be in the discussion. Decades from now, historians will memorialize Garland not as a dedicated public servant and fair-minded federal judge whose nomination to the Supreme Court was torpedoed by Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans, but as the head of the Justice Department who brought a butter knife to an existential gunfight with Trump, quickening our collective descent into neo-fascism.
After his appointment to helm the DOJ, Garland had one overarching mission: to swiftly convene a grand jury to investigate Trump for his role in inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. This was a task a third-year law student could easily have accomplished. Garland failed, abjectly.
Garland will forever bear the principal stain of wimping out when courage and—to put it in the vernacular—balls were needed to stop Trump.
Probable cause for an early indictment was abundant and obvious. On January 6, millions of Americans watched Trump stand on the Ellipse at the south end of the White House and urge his supporters to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell.” Millions watched the actual assault that followed, blow by medieval blow. Even the corrupt McConnell, who voted to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial in February 2021, declared on the Senate floor, “There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day [January 6].”
Instead of targeting Trump and his chief lieutenants immediately, Garland set out to arrest and try the foot soldiers of the uprising. And while he did a commendable job in that respect (eventually charging more than 1,500 with federal crimes), he dithered on Trump until November 2022, when he appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to probe Trump for the insurrection and absconding from the White House with a trove of highly classified documents.
By then, it was too late.
Although Smith secured an indictment of Trump in Washington, D.C., for conspiracy, obstruction, and election subversion on August 1, 2023, the indictment was gutted by the Supreme Court (Trump v. United States) the following July in a decision that granted Trump sweeping and unprecedented immunity from criminal prosecution.
Written by Chief Justice John Roberts, a lifelong conservative activist with an undeserved reputation as a judicial institutionalist, the ruling is arguably the worst edict handed down by the high court since the Dred Scott case of 1857. “Trump v. United States is distinct as a deliberate attack on the core institutions and principles of the republic, preparing the way for a MAGA authoritarian regime much as Dred Scott tried to do for the slavocracy,” wrote Sean Wilenz in a scathing article for The New York Review of Books.
Smith also indicted Trump in Florida in the documents case, but that prosecution was subsequently scuttled by District Court Judge Aileen Mercedes Cannon, an inexperienced MAGA sycophant whom Trump installed on the federal bench in the runup to the 2020 election.
In addition to Garland, the Supreme Court, and Cannon, former President Joe Biden also shares responsibility for letting Trump off the hook. From Day 1, Biden should have used the bully pulpit to attack, isolate, and destroy Trump and his MAGA base. Instead, he pursued a politics of accommodation, preaching a return to the false neoliberal normalcy of bipartisanship. Most critically of all, Biden decided to seek a second term, when it was apparent to everyone with two eyes and ears that he was no longer fit, either physically or mentally, for another stint behind the Resolute Desk. With Biden’s approval rating plunging to 40%, former Vice President Kamala Harris had little to no chance of defeating Trump at the polls.
But standing atop the heap, Garland will forever bear the principal stain of wimping out when courage and—to put it in the vernacular—balls were needed to stop Trump before the forces of reaction had time to regroup and reorganize. They are now in control.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Fumes as Final Jack Smith Report Details 'Series of Criminal Efforts to Retain Power'
"But for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial," the report states.
Jan 14, 2025
The special counsel who investigated and charged Donald Trump over his attempts to subvert the 2020 election said in a final report released by the U.S. Justice Department early Tuesday that the former president would have been convicted for "a series of criminal efforts to retain power" had he not won another White House term in November.
"But for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial," wrote Jack Smith, who resigned from the Justice Department late last week ahead of Inauguration Day.
Smith pointed to the Justice Department's view that "the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president," a position he said is "categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind."
The report, which Trump's legal team sought to bury, is the first of two volumes that Smith's team produced following the completion of its investigations into the former president's unlawful election interference and hoarding of classified documents. Smith dropped the two cases shortly after Trump's victory in the 2024 election.
According to the Justice Department, Smith has urged that the volume on the classified documents probe not be released to the public while the case against Trump's former co-defendants is still pending.
"Trump worked with other people to achieve a common plan: to overturn the election results and perpetuate himself in office."
In the newly released report, Smith detailed how Trump and his allies tried to "induce state officials to ignore true vote counts," manufactured "fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he had lost," directed "an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election," and leveraged "rioters' violence to further delay it."
"In service of these efforts, Mr. Trump worked with other people to achieve a common plan: to overturn the election results and perpetuate himself in office," the report added.
Trump responded furiously to the report's release, ranting on social media that "Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his 'boss,' Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another 'Report' based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were."
In his introduction to the report, Smith rejected as "laughable" Trump's claim that the investigations were politically motivated or influenced in any way by the Biden administration.
"While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters. I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters," Smith wrote. "The facts, as we uncovered them in our investigation and as set forth in my report, matter. Experienced prosecutors know that you cannot control outcomes, you can only do your job the right way for the right reasons. I conclude our work confident that we have done so, and that we have met fully our obligations to the department and to our country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Plans to Release Jack Smith's Report on Trump Election Case
The attorney general intends to withhold the classified documents report while a related legal battle plays out but make it available to certain members of Congress, according to a court filing.
Jan 08, 2025
With less than two weeks until U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration, the Department of Justice said Wednesday that outgoing Attorney General Merrick Garland will make public the portion of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report that deals with the Republican's attempt to circumvent his 2020 election loss—an effort that culminated in the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The full report that Smith sent Garland on Tuesday is in two parts—one for each federal case that Smith took over in 2022 but later dropped due to Trump's November win. Volume one is about election subversion, and volume two is about the ex-president's alleged mishandling of classified material, which led to a raid of Mar-a-Lago, his Florida residence.
"The attorney general intends to release volume one to Congress and the public consistent with 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c) and in furtherance of the public interest in informing a co-equal branch and the public regarding this significant matter," the DOJ explained in a Wednesday filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
The filing relates to an attempt by Trump's co-defendants in the second case—valet Waltine Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira—to block the release of the report. The DOJ said that "to avoid any risk of prejudice to defendants Nauta and De Oliveira, the attorney general has determined, at the recommendation of the special counsel, that he will not publicly release volume two so long as defendants' criminal proceedings remain pending."
"For the time being, volume two will be made available for in-camera review only by the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees upon their request and agreement not to release any information from volume two publicly," the DOJ added. "This limited disclosure will further the public interest in keeping congressional leadership apprised of a significant matter within the department while safeguarding defendants' interests."
The filing does not say when Garland will release volume one. The revelations of his plans came a day after Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon—who last July dismissed the classified documents case, leading to an appeal—ordered the DOJ to withhold Smith's final report, despite questions about her authority to do so.
Government watchdog groups and ethics experts have lambasted Garland for not going after Trump quickly and forcefully enough for his various alleged crimes—which critics argue could have prevented his looming return to office.
The president-elect is set to be sworn in on January 20. His attorneys claimed in a Monday letter to Garland that releasing Smith's report would "violate the Presidential Transition Act and the presidential immunity doctrine."
Trump's lawyers have seen a draft of Smith's report and offered a preview in the letter to Garland, writing in part that "volume one of the draft report falsely asserts, without any jury determination, that President Trump and others 'engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort,' was 'the head of the criminal conspiracies,' and harbored a 'criminal design,'" while "volume II asserts, without any supporting verdict, 'that Mr. Trump violated multiple federal criminal laws,' and that he and others engaged in 'criminal conduct.'"
Politico pointed out Wednesday that "Trump welcomed the public release of previous special counsel reports, including Special Counsel Robert Hur's devastating assessment of President Joe Biden."
The Republican-controlled Senate is already preparing to hold confirmation hearings for Trump nominees including Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general and the president-elect's pick to replace Biden-appointed Garland.
Trump, meanwhile, has said that he is considering swiftly issuing pardons for his supporters charged and convicted for storming the U.S. Capitol four years ago—which opponents have warned "would be an affront to our democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Appointed Judge Orders Biden DOJ to Conceal Jack Smith Report
"Delay is the name of the game here," said one legal analyst. "If they can just stop the clock until January 20th, then... the attorney general will be a Trump appointee and they can kill the whole thing."
Jan 07, 2025
Aileen Cannon, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Florida, ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to temporarily withhold from the American public special counsel Jack Smith's final report on his investigations into the president-elect, despite questions about her authority to do so.
Cannon's order came in response to a Monday request by President-elect Donald Trump's longtime valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira, who are facing charges in a classified documents case brought by Smith. Trump was also charged in the classified documents probe, but Smith dropped the case against the Republican leader after he won the 2024 presidential election.
In their filing on Monday, Nauta and De Oliveira's attorneys called on Cannon to bar the release of Smith's final report, even though the classified documents case is currently before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta—not Cannon's court. The Justice Department is appealing Cannon's decision last summer to dismiss the classified documents case as the agency pursues charges against Nauta and De Oliveira.
Cannon wrote in her order Tuesday that Attorney General Merrick Garland, Smith, and other Justice Department employees are enjoined from "releasing, sharing, or transmitting" Smith's final report or "any drafts of such report" outside the DOJ. The judge said her order would remain in effect until the 11th Circuit rules on Nauta and De Oliveira's motion to prohibit the release of Smith's report.
Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said in an appearance on MSNBC that she doesn't believe Cannon has "any jurisdiction" over decisions surrounding Smith's report.
"But delay is the name of the game here," she added. "If they can just stop the clock until January 20th, then... the attorney general will be a Trump appointee and they can kill the whole thing and say, 'There's no report to disclose.' So that's the goal here."
Speaking to reporters Tuesday just ahead of Cannon's order, Trump claimed he didn't "know" the Florida judge—despite appointing her—but praised her as "brilliant."
Trump on Judge Cannon who he appointed: I don't know the judge in Florida, but we had a brilliant judge in Florida.. her opinion was so brilliant that they dropped the appeal pic.twitter.com/rjzsNANHyu
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 7, 2025
Smith said in a filing earlier Tuesday that his office is still "working to finalize" the report on his investigations into Trump's hoarding of classified documents and efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election. By law, special counsels are required to submit a final report to the attorney general, who has the authority to decide whether to make the findings available to the public.
Smith said in his filing that he would not transmit his report to Garland before 1:00 pm on Tuesday, and that the attorney general would not release the findings before the morning of January 10—if at all. It's unclear how Cannon's order will impact Smith's timeline.
Trump's lawyers have demanded that Garland withhold Smith's report entirely, claiming in a letter to the attorney general on Monday that making it public would "violate the Presidential Transition Act and the presidential immunity doctrine."
In their letter to Garland, Trump's attorneys—who have reviewed Smith's confidential report in recent days—revealed that the first volume of the document states that the president-elect "engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort" and was "the head of the criminal conspiracies" surrounding the 2020 election.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy